Agenda item

4.1

Pre-Election Rules on Publicity

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Jayne Dunn) stated that the meeting was being held within the pre-election period for the Woodhouse Ward By-Election on 28^th November 2024 and that, accordingly, the Pre-Election Rules on Publicity would need to be adhered to.  She reported that guidance on the Rules had been issued to all Members and she emphasised that Members must refrain from making speeches or asking supplementary questions which relate directly to the Woodhouse Ward, or are about matters that are likely to be locally contentious and, furthermore, must also avoid naming or making reference to candidates who are standing at the election.

4.2

Public Petitions, Questions and Statements

The Lord Mayor reported that two petitions were to be received at the meeting.  She added that written responses to questions received from eight members of the public on matters relating to the remit of full Council had been provided to the questioners and published on the Council’s website in advance of the meeting, and three supplementary questions arising from those responses had been received.  In addition, one statement relating to the remit of full Council had been received from a member of the public.  No questions had been received from members of the public on matters relating to items of business on the agenda for the meeting.

4.3

Petitions

4.3.1

Petition for Residents Only Parking on Troutbeck Road, Sheffield 7

The Council received a petition containing 19 signatures calling on the Council to install a resident only parking scheme on Troutbeck Road, Sheffield 7.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Callum Sweet, who stated that the residents of Troutbeck Road wished to work with the Council to find a way to tackle problem parking on the road, which was causing increasing tension, including between residents and nearby businesses. During planning consultations for the Jacob’s Gate development, potential residents had been told that they would have two private parking spaces each, but these had not been provided, and this was contrary to Highways regulations. Staff members from local businesses on Abbeydale Road were also parking on Troutbeck Road due to inadequate parking provision and bus lane restrictions.

Mr Sweet advised that this meant residents in the terraced housing were struggling to find parking spaces on weekdays, and this was particularly difficult for people with young children and those with disabilities. These issues were causing conflict between residents and some staff at the STEPS facility, who claimed that the road within the Jacob’s Gate area was private land.  Mr Sweet requested clarification on this from the Council.   He added that a petition suggesting a permit holder only policy, had been signed by 13 of the 15 terraced houses on Troutbeck Road, one more had given verbal agreement, and the only house not included was owned by STEPS.   Residents were hoping to work with the Council to establish the detail of how a permit scheme would operate.

The petition was referred to Councillor Ben Miskell (Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee) to respond.  Councillor Miskell stated that the previous week at the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee meeting, it had been decided to introduce several measures on Abbeydale Road aimed at improving bus transit times in order to reduce congestion, support economic growth, and offer people more travel options.  It was also part of a broader effort, led by South Yorkshire’s Mayor, Oliver Coppard, on bus franchising.

Councillor Miskell advised that, in making this decision, the Committee had removed a small number of parking spaces on Abbeydale Road, which was a necessary step to meet the Council’s city-wide priorities.  He added that the Committee was aware of the concerns about parking availability on Troutbeck Road and accordingly he would refer the petition to the Committee for further consideration in order to explore potential solutions to mitigate the issue, including the potential for a limited parking scheme.

4.3.2

Petition Requesting the Council to Restore the Winter Fuel Allowance

A petition was received containing 217 signatures calling on the Council to restore the winter fuel allowance to pensioners.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Alistair Tice, representing the Trade Unionist & Socialist Coalition, who stated that despite the Labour Government saying that there would be no return to austerity, its decision to cut the winter fuel allowance of up to £300 from nearly 10 million pensioners, was a callous austerity policy. He added that pensioners in Britain received the lowest state pension in Western Europe and energy prices had increased by a further 10%. This meant that many pensioners would face the choice of heating or eating in the coming winter. He said that Age UK estimated that 2.5 million pensioners were already in fuel poverty, and he believed that the fuel allowance cut would make this worse.

Mr Tice stated that the cut would only save the Government £1.5 billion per year, yet if all the pensioners eligible for pension credit who had not yet claimed it did so, it would cost £2.2 billion.  He believed that the Government was doing this to prove to the establishment that the Government would make tough decisions and hard choices, but these would be tough and hard on pensioners. He added that Labour Councillors had justified the cut by saying the allowance had been paid to rich pensioners who did not need it, but pensions were a universal benefit and in his opinion it would be better to tax the “super rich”.

Mr Tice concluded by saying that an estimated 75,000 pensioners in Sheffield were affected by the cut.  The petition called on the Council to use the Household Support Fund or similar, to restore the £200 or £300 loss to pensioners, as had already been done by Tower Hamlets and Barnsley Councils. Mr Tice stated that the Council had half a billion pounds in reserves, so in his view the Council could afford his suggestion.

The petition was referred to Councillor Tom Hunt (Leader of the Council and Chair of the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee) to respond.  Councillor Hunt stated that the change to the Winter Fuel Payment was a necessary choice and that it had been made because the previous government made spending commitments without knowing where the money was going to come from, and this had left a £22 billion black hole in public finances for the Labour government to sort out.

Councillor Hunt hoped that everyone would welcome the fact that the Winter Fuel Allowance would continue to support those most in need.  He added that in the national budget announcement made in the previous week, the Household Support Fund had been extended for a further year.  Additionally, the Council was working in partnership with Citizens Advice Sheffield and the Department for Work and Pensions, to increase the uptake of Pension Credit.  As part of this, the Council has written out to over 7,000 households who it had identified as being in receipt of Housing Benefit or Council Tax Support, but not Pension Credit.  This had led to a rise in people claiming Pension Credit.  Councillor Hunt added that he was sure that the signatories to the petition would also welcome the Government upholding the "triple lock" on state pensions.

Councillor Hunt advised that the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee would be examining the issue further at its December meeting, and therefore he was happy to refer the petition to that meeting. He asked that the petitioners encourage people they think might be entitled to Pension Credit to get in touch so that the Council can make sure that the people who need the support get it.

4.4

Supplementary Public Questions

4.4.1

Supplementary Questions, from Julie Pearn, Calling on the Council to Fly the Palestinian Flag on 29^th November

Julie Pearn asked “On 29th October 2024, in a welcome move, a Declaration of Friendship was signed between the cities of Sheffield and Nablus “to promote friendship, understanding and exchange experience and knowledge”.  I hope this bond will strengthen empathy with Palestinians throughout Palestine, who suffer daily humanitarian catastrophe at the hands of the Israeli Occupation.

Will the City of Sheffield give a first concrete expression to its Declaration and fly the Palestinian flag on November 29^th, the UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People?”.

In response, Councillor Tom Hunt (Leader of the Council and Chair of the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee) stated that the Council had a protocol for the flying of flags, and he had requested that the Chief Executive follow the procedure for considering the request to fly the Palestinian flag on 29th November.  He would inform Ms. Pearn of the outcome of that process in due course.

Regarding the friendship agreement with the city of Nablus, on the West Bank, Councillor Hunt advised that he had been proud to be at the signing ceremony with the Lord Mayor and other group leaders the previous week where he had a positive conversation with the Mayor of Nablus and other members of the Nablus municipality about how to extend the hand of friendship, and extend the links between the cities of Sheffield and Nablus.  He added that the Council would explore options for further expressing the city’s solidarity and friendship with Nablus and would welcome any suggestions in that regard.

4.4.2

Supplementary Questions, from Annie O’Gara, Regarding the Council’s Contract with Barclay’s Bank

Annie O’Gara asked “Discretion means the freedom to decide, in the light of one’s own values, what should be done in any situation.  You say SCC operates ‘at all times in line with our values’.

SCC’s PQQ [Pre-Qualification Questionnaire] of 2018 said this about grave misconduct which can trigger Discretionary Exclusion: ‘To be considered grave misconduct [the matter] does not have to have been … established … by a judgment which has the force of res judicata.  The authority will consider any cogent evidence’.

Yet in your reply to me you emphasise res judicata, referencing a court’s naming of companies, seemingly minimising your own power to exercise discretion.

The International Court of Justice ruled that the Occupation is unlawful, that there is evidence of genocide, that countries must not provide aid/assistance to Israel.  Those who invest in, and underwrite, the weapons trade slaughtering and maiming thousands, do provide aid/assistance, like Barclays, complicit to the tune of billions of pounds in the arms trade.

Your powers of discretion are greater than you choose to use regarding Barclays, a complicit and compromised bank, you refuse even to express concern to Barclays.”

In response, Councillor Tom Hunt (Leader of the Council and Chair of the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee) stated that he would repeat what he had said in answer to the original question, i.e. that the Council acted at all times in line with its values and its ethical procurement policy and would continue to do so.  He added that the policy would be brought back to the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee later in the municipal year.  On the specific point around PQQ, Councillor Hunt confirmed that he would provide a written response, but he was clear that the Council was acting in line with both its values and the ethical procurement policy.

4.4.3

Supplementary Questions, from Jonathan Feldman, Calling on the Council to Adopt the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism

Jonathan Feldman asked “It is disingenuous to quote from the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] without reference to the examples in it - most of these associate antisemitism with criticism of Israel and have quite clearly played a role in the political discourse.

First, how does the Council know that the IHRA has not stifled debate?  There is plenty of evidence (e.g. from the European Legal Support Centre - their report is here: https://res.cloudinary.com/elsc/images/v1694507437/Freedom-of-Speech-and-Academic-Freedom-in-UK-Higher-Education-BRISMES-ELSC/Freedom-of-Speech-and-Academic-Freedom-in-UK-Higher-Education-BRISMES-ELSC.pdf?_i=AA) that people are worried about accusations of antisemitism in any institution where the IHRA has been adopted.  The Council themselves referred to the IHRA when they asked Julie Pearn to stop speaking at a meeting.  It took months, and the intervention of a legal letter, before the Council back tracked.

Second, the Jerusalem Declaration is an improved version leaving no doubt that criticism of Israel per se is not antisemitic, in contrast with the IHRA where the examples are used to stifle comment as described above.  To say that the IHRA is widely adopted is a defensive position that also seeks to limit discussion.  Capital punishment was once widely adopted too.  Why would the Council not seek to review and improve its policies?”

In response, Councillor Tom Hunt (Leader of the Council and Chair of the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee) stated that the Council had adopted the IHRA definition in 2019, and whilst he was aware that the definition was subject to a substantial debate, the Council remained committed to it.  The Council did not believe that the IHRA definition had limited its political discourse within the Council.

Councillor Hunt added that the IHRA definition had been widely endorsed by various governments, institutions, and organisations worldwide, making it the commonly referenced standard for recognising and addressing antisemitic behaviours. Additionally, the UK Government, European Parliament, the EU monitoring centre on Racism and Xenophobia and the UK College of Policing had all formally adopted it.

Councillor Hunt stated that he found it disappointing to be having the conversation when the broader picture was that in the last year there has been a rapid increase in the reporting of both antisemitism and Islamophobia and the fear, anxiety and harm this caused was a stain on society.

Councillor Hunt confirmed that the Council stood against and worked to eliminate all forms of discrimination, harassment and victimisation and actively sought to foster good relationships between people, especially when there was division, and when this was challenging.

4.5

Public Statement

The following statement was read out at the meeting by Paul Wimpeney -

Since October 2023, even when in receipt of a petition signed by 7,500 people, the Council has taken no meaningful action to recognise the suffering of the Palestinian people.

They insisted that to declare Sheffield an Israeli apartheid-free zone, would be merely “symbolic”.  In reality, many organisations, like Amnesty International, have seen the point in labelling Israel an apartheid regime.

Furthermore, in July 2024 the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel is also in breach of the “Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination”.

We refute, therefore, that any actions taken would be symbolic only.  They have a persuasive moral force.

Other suggestions:

? Demand Barclays bank withdraws investments in the Israeli arms trade, or change banks.

? Urge the South Yorkshire Pension Fund to divest from companies with Israeli interests.

? Offer advice to all Sheffield businesses regarding the legality of trading with Israel at this time.

? Fly the Palestinian flag above the Town Hall on 29th November, “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people”, as Rotherham Council has decided to do.

Sheffield City Council has to decide whether it opposes injustice or seeks merely to appease those who justify apartheid and genocide.”